DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
The USPTO has retrieved certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). These papers have been placed of record in the file. A certified English translation is not currently required and has not been filed. Filing of a certified English translation may become necessary during prosecution of this application, such as in the event of an interference or intervening reference. Applicant is advised that should a certified English translation be required, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in order for applicant to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). See 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e) or 37 CFR 1.55 and MPEP § 201.15, respectively. In that event, failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Examiner recommends proactively filing a certified English translation if applicant prefers to avoid the potential delay in prosecution that would result if an intervening reference is discovered.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (step 1). If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea) (step 2A), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception (step 2B). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 189 L. Ed. 2d 296, 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4303, 110 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1976, 82 U.S.L.W. 4508, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 870, 2014 WL 2765283 (U.S. 2014); MPEP 2106.
Step 1:
In the instant case claims 1-8 are directed to a machine, claims 9-16 are directed to a process, and claims 17-20 are directed to a manufacture. All claims are therefore within statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03, Eligibility Step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
These claims also recite, inter alia,
“acquiring sensor data representative of environmental conditions …, acquiring first text …, converting each of the sensor data into second text, generating a prompt using the first and second text, inputting the prompt to a computer model, which generates in response thereto third text that promotes an item sold in the store, wherein the computer model is a large language model that has learned relationships and connections between human perceptions under different environmental conditions, and data of items sold in the store, and … display the third text.” Claim 1.
With recited additional elements reserved for consideration alone and all together combined with their recited role(s) in the claim under step 2A prong two, a careful analysis of the remaining limitations above results in the conclusion that each on its own recites an abstract idea and in combination they simply recite a more detailed abstract idea. The recited abstract idea falls within the grouping of abstract ideas described as certain methods of organizing human activity, for example commercial interactions (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). See MPEP 2106.04(a); Eligibility Step 2A1. The claims must therefore be analyzed under the second prong of Eligibility Step 2 (Step 2A2; MPEP 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
In order to address prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step2A2) we must identify whether there are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas and determine whether those additional elements (if there are any) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d), Eligibility Step 2A2. The additional elements in present claims 1-8 are an input device, an interface circuit connectable to one or more sensors located outside or inside the store, a display, a memory, and a processor. Claims 5 and 8 identify types of sensor, and claim 8 also refers to the shopping terminal mentioned in the preamble of claim 1. Claims 9-16 include only the sensors and input device, with the exception of claim 11 which also includes the memory, claim 13 which specifies types of sensor, and claim 16 which includes one type of sensor (a camera) attached to the shopping terminal mentioned in the preamble of claim 9. Claims 17-20 only include a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform the method, the one or more sensors, and the input device, with the exception of claim 19 which also includes the memory. These additional elements have been considered individually, in combination, and altogether as a whole together with the functions they perform, e.g., in claims 1-8 the processor, and in claims 17-20 the computer, execute the program that is stored in the memory and are broadly and generally recited as performing all steps in terms of the intended results of functionally nonspecific activities. The sensors only serve as a source of data, there being no indication how that data is gathered or provided. They are identified but only tangentially by type rather than by operation or any specific contribution. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the recited claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim is mostly a recitation of abstract ideas, particularly the core of the recited invention. The substantive process is recited only by descriptions of abstract intended results of the steps without indicating any particular functional acts performed by any device or structural element to perform the steps or otherwise obtain the intended results. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of any computer or other technology or technical field, they do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine, they do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing, and they fail to apply or use the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05.
If the disclosure describes any improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field this improvement would need to be identifiable as the subject matter appearing in the claims. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. MPEP 2106.05(a).
Claim limitations can integrate a judicial exception into a practical application by implementing the judicial exception with or using it in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of generic computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, (Fed. Cir. 2014); MPEP 2106.05(b),(f). There are no particular machines or manufactures identified in the present claims. Any claimed elements that are not abstract are identified broadly and generally as applying the method, and the method itself is described only by way of the intended functional results of unidentified activities, without reference to any particular functional acts or specific operations performed by any particularly identified machines, and without reference to its use in conjunction with any particular item of manufacture.
The claims do not affect the transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which data, thoughts, impressions, or human based actions are "changed" are not considered a transformation. MPEP 2106.05(c).
The claims do not apply or use the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. As a result the claim as a whole appears to be a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP 2106.05(e),(h).
The additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Although the additional elements have not been found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application the claims could still be eligible if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more” than the judicial exception). MPEP 2106.05, Eligibility Step 2B.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sparse additional elements of the claim are mere props supporting instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as tools to perform an abstract process. Simply adding general purpose computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9721, 115 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). The elements fail to present a technical solution to a technical problem created by the use of the surrounding technology. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. See Ret. Capital Access Mgmt. Co. v. U.S. Bancorp, 611 Fed. Appx. 1007, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14351 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“It may be very clever; it may be very useful in a commercial context, but they are still abstract ideas,” said Circuit Judge Alan Lourie.). MPEP 2106.05(h).
Finally, it is reiterated that the remaining dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, do not contribute any additional elements other than those already discussed and do not add "significantly more" to establish eligibility because they merely recite additional abstract ideas that further describe the data and manipulation of data used in implementing the abstract idea. A more detailed abstract idea is still abstract. PricePlay.com, Inc. v. AOL Adver., Inc., 627 Fed. Appx. 925, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 611, 2016 WL 80002 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 7, 2016) (in addressing a bundle of abstract ideas stacked together during oral argument, U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore said, "All of these ideas are abstract…. It’s like you want a patent because you combined two abstract ideas and say two is better than one.").
All of the above leads to the conclusion that additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the claimed subject matter into significantly more than an abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05; Eligibility Step 2B. As a result the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because they recite an abstract idea without being directed to a practical application, and they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05, supra..
The preceding analysis applies to all statutory categories of invention. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 USC 101 based upon the same analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by OGISU (Pub. No.: US 2025/0322431 A1).
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
OGISU teaches all the limitations of claims 1-4, 6-12, and 14-20. For example OGISU discloses making product recommendations based on sensor data converted to text and combined with other text input to generate an MML prompt. OGISU further discloses, regarding
Claim 1. A shopping terminal that is used in a store, comprising: ● an input device (see at least OGISU ¶0039); ● an interface circuit connectable to one or more sensors located outside or inside the store (see at least OGISU ¶0027 “edge server 2 may acquire external data from a sensor device such as a temperature sensor installed outside of the store,” ¶0037 “communication unit 105 is a communication interface such as a LAN interface (I/F) and is connected to the network Na. The communication unit 105, for example, transmits and receives various information to and from the edge server,” ¶0073 “data acquisition unit 2002 may also acquire external data, for example, from a sensor device”. Please note: “outside or inside” is not limiting as it includes everywhere.); ● a display (see at least OGISU fig. 2); ● a memory (see at least OGISU figs. 2-3); and ● a processor configured to execute a program that is stored in the memory (see at least OGISU ¶¶0032, 0043, 0063 “a software configuration implemented by cooperation between the processor of the edge device 1 and the program”) to perform the steps of: ● acquiring sensor data representative of environmental conditions from the sensors through the interface circuit (see at least OGISU ¶0027 “edge server 2 also acquires environment information … via the network Nb. The edge server 2 acquires, for example, external data such as the weather and temperature in the surroundings of the store from an external server such as a server providing meteorological data…. edge server 2 may acquire external data from a sensor device such as a temperature sensor installed outside of the store,” ¶0037 “communication unit 105 is a communication interface such as a LAN interface (I/F) and is connected to the network Na. The communication unit 105, for example, transmits and receives various information to and from the edge server”),
● acquiring first text that is input through the input device (see at least OGISU abstract “control unit inputs the inquiry prompt,” figs. 7, 10),
● converting each of the sensor data into second text (see at least OGISU figs. 5, 8-10, ¶0057-0058 “prompt DB 2044 is a data table or a database [0058] storing prompts in correlation with customer attribute information and external data. FIG. 5 shows an example of the data configuration of the prompt DB 2044. As shown in FIG. 5, the prompt DB 2044 stores prompt types with associated specific date and time, weather, age, gender, and the like values,” ¶0059 “The prompt type is identification information to identify a prompt corresponding to the content of a data entry of the date and time, weather, age, gender, or the like stored in the prompt DB 2044. A prompt template correlated with the prompt type can be stored template database established in the memory unit 204. The date and time, and the weather are examples of external data”),
● generating a prompt using the first and second text (see at least OGISU ¶0028 “sends a prompt that has been generated based on an estimated customer attribute and the acquired external data,” ¶0074 “The prompt generation unit 2003 generates inquiry text based on information including the customer an attribute(s) and the external data, and an instruction sentence giving an instruction to generate a merchandise text”),
● inputting the prompt to a computer model, which generates in response thereto third text that promotes an item sold in the store, wherein the computer model is a large language model that has learned relationships and connections between human perceptions under different environmental conditions, and data of items sold in the store (see at least OGISU ¶0028 “sends a prompt that has been generated based on an estimated customer attribute and the acquired external data to a merchandise item suggestion LLM,” ¶0029 “server 2 generates sales promotion information for the extracted merchandise item”), and
● controlling the display to display the third text (see at least OGISU figs. 8-10).
Claim 2. The shopping terminal according to claim 1, wherein converting includes classifying each of the sensor data into a predetermined number of classes, each of which is associated with the corresponding second text (see at least OGISU fig.5, ¶0058 “FIG. 5 shows an example of the data configuration of the prompt DB 2044. As shown in FIG. 5, the prompt DB 2044 stores prompt types with associated specific date and time, weather, age, gender, and the like values,” ¶0059 “The prompt type is identification information to identify a prompt corresponding to the content of a data entry of the date and time, weather, age, gender, or the like”).Claim 3. The shopping terminal according to claim 2, wherein the memory stores first data in which each of the classes is associated with the corresponding second text, and converting includes referring to the first data when classifying each of the sensor data (see at least OGISU figs.5, 7, 10, ¶0058 “FIG. 5 shows an example of the data configuration of the prompt DB 2044. As shown in FIG. 5, the prompt DB 2044 stores prompt types with associated specific date and time, weather, age, gender, and the like values,” ¶0059 “The prompt type is identification information to identify a prompt corresponding to the content of a data entry of the date and time, weather, age, gender, or the like”).Claim 4. The shopping terminal according to claim 3, wherein each of the sensor data indicates a value and is classified into the predetermined number of classes using one or more threshold values (see at least OGISU ¶0058 “specific date and time, weather, age, gender, and the like values,” ¶0073 “temperature sensor”. Please note: examiner’s position is that temperature is inherently a numerical value, however examiner also notes that any data is a value.).Claim 6. The shopping terminal according to claim 3, wherein each of the sensor data is classified into the predetermined number of classes using the computer model, wherein the large language model of the computer model has also learned relationships and connections between sensor data representative of environmental conditions and multiple classes corresponding to human perception under different environmental conditions (see at least OGISU ¶0028 “sends a prompt that has been generated based on an estimated customer attribute and the acquired external data to a merchandise item suggestion LLM,” ¶0077 “LLM 2043, which has been functionalized to generate a text about a merchandise item in response to the instruction content of the inquiry text”).Claim 7. The shopping terminal according to claim 3, wherein one of the sensor data is an image, and converting includes performing an object recognition on the image and obtaining the second text corresponding to a result of the object recognition (see at least OGISU figs. 2, 6, 10, ¶0026 “using a known image recognition technique or the like”).Claim 8. The shopping terminal according to claim 7, wherein the sensors include a camera attached to the shopping terminal (see at least OGISU ¶0040 “The image pickup unit 108 can be a camera or the like”).
Pertaining to method claims 9-12 and 14-16, and computer medium claims 17-20
Rejection of claims 9-12, 14-16, and 17-20, is based on the same rationale noted above. In addition, OGISU discloses regarding
Claim 17. A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute the claimed method (see at least OGISU ¶0111).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGISU (Pub. No.: US 2025/0322431 A1) in view of 伊東 久雄 (JP 7863780 B2).
Ogisu teaches all of the above as noted. It teaches, a) making product recommendations, b) converting sensor data to text to generate an AI prompt, c) multiple weather sensors, and d) explicitly introduces a temperature sensor, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sensors include a wind speed sensor, a temperature sensor, and a humidity sensor.
伊東 久雄 also teaches a) making product recommendations, b) converting sensor data to text to generate an AI prompt, and c) multiple weather sensors, and 伊東 久雄 further discloses regarding
Claim 5. The shopping terminal according to claim 4, wherein the sensors include a wind speed sensor, a temperature sensor, and a humidity sensor (see at least 伊東 久雄 p.2¶7 “a sensor that measures real-world physical quantities (for example, temperature),” p.4¶9 “data indicating "temperature increase" and "humidity increase" is obtained as measurement results from the sensor,” p.5¶9 “a digital signal that causes the control device to "increase the output" of the air conditioner and set the "airflow direction…”. Please note: airflow is the equivalent of windspeed, and controlling the speed inherently requires sensing it.).Pertaining to method claim 13
Rejection of claim 13 is based on the same rationale noted above.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention (for pre-AIA applications) or filing (for applications filed under the AIA ) to modify the method of Ogisu to include wherein the sensors include a wind speed sensor, a temperature sensor, and a humidity sensor, as taught by 伊東 久雄 since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable and would result in an improvement. This is because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features even from a variety of technical fields into methods and systems implemented using similar technological structures (i.e., generic computer and/or network hardware such as processors, servers, etc.). In this case the areas of technical endeavor are nonetheless similar and overlapping.
Applicant has not disclosed that the added feature solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose beyond the performance of the functions they performed separately and since each element and its function are shown in the prior art the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. It would therefore have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the feature from 伊東 久雄 in the method of Ogisu. Furthermore the combination solved no long felt need. Incorporating cumulative known features is additionally obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because doing so increases commercial use of a method by attracting users that previously might have chosen between one of the previously known methods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
● CHOI, KR 20250169775 A: this is an intervening reference. Teaches inputted keyword text derived from a prompt to a model that produces an image and combines them to match with targeted advertising content that synthesizes a second image with the first image. Includes sensors combined for input and imaging.
● Google LLC, JP7407856B2: teaches using environmental sensor data to analyze images for image recognition, including text.
● IWASAKI, Pub. No.: US 2025/0390922 A1: this is not prior art as it names the same inventive entity and was filed only a week prior, but could implicate an obviousness type double patenting rejection in the event applicant does not maintain a clear distinction between the claim sets. Teaches using learned relationships based on environmental sensor data to connect human perceptions under different environmental conditions with items in a store. Uses labels for the sensor data rather than converting to text and merging the text with user input text.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM LEVINE whose telephone number is (571)272-8122. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am-7:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571.272.6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM L LEVINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights